In reading Ted Hughes' introduction, there was one idea that really caught my interest: that Shakespeare, at least on some level, was "writing for a deadline". For some reason, in all of my previous studies (though they are minimal) and writing and reading of his works, I have had a mental image of sort of a brilliant and strange musing prodigy. This essay is the first place I have received any hint as to the legitimate effort that was put forth into the language and form of these plays and sonnets.
On page 36, Hughes says that "...to assemble and deploy the extraordinary number (of works) that he did suggests a particular diligence of method.
In Sonnet 111, Shakespeare even says "almost...my nature is subdued to what it works in, like a dyer's hand." His writing, then, must have been more of a job to him than many people realize; instead of the Hunter S. Thompson-esque trance that I pictured, Shakespeare (according to Hughes) was merely a brilliant, but not particularly insightful or out-of-the-ordinary, poet.
However, his way with words is unarguable. The vocabulary he uses in his poetry was no more common in the Globe theater days than it is today.
So how did he manage to do this? "How did he manage to introduce such a steady flow of strange words and yet reduce them to what turned out to be a massively successful language of the common bond?" (Hughes 25) That question is one that I (with the help of Hughes and Turner) am striving to find an answer to.
-AS
No comments:
Post a Comment